On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:42 PM, TimSC wrote: > On 18/04/11 22:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should >> really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every >> downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do >> with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major >> tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source >> and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a >> technique that you seem to discount above. >> >> So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data >> until now has cared sh*t for the license. >> >> Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was >> incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. >> >> What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, >> in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, >> but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has >> been happening. Reality check, anyone? >> >> Bye >> Frederik >> > I actually agree with you Frederik, but the entire project so far overlooks > the even bigger problem that CC-by-SA technically demands that every > contributor is attributed in every derived work.
"reasonable to the medium" it says in the license. Not "every contributor". It would clearly be unreasonable to list tens of thousands of people on a paper map, for example. Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
